You are on page 1of 22

Brztzsh

ffournal
of Sociology Volume29 Aumber2 jfune I978

NicholasAbercrombieand BryanS. Turner

The dominantideologythesis*

ABSTRACT

A good deal of researchand theoryconstructionin the sociologyof


knowledgerelieson the 'dominantideologythesis'.Thisthesissuggests
that there is ill most societiesa set of beliefswhich dominatesall
othersand which, throughits incorporationin the consciousness of
subordinateclasses, tends to inhibit the developmentof radical
politicaldissent.In this articlewe proposea numberof reinterpreta-
tionsof thisthesiswhichat presentsystematically ignoresthe eSectof
the dominantideologyon the dominantclass.Thereis goodevidence
that the subordinateclassesare not incorporatedinto the dominant
ideology and that, by contrast,the dominant classes are deeply
penetratedby and incorporatedwithin the dominantbeliefsystem.
In most societiesthe apparatusof transmissionof the dominant
ideologyis not veryefficientand,in any event,is typicallydirectedat
the dominantratherthan the subordinateclass. We concludethat
there is no well markeddominantideologyin the later phasesof
capitalism.Thus, the dominantideologyhas the functionof main-
tainingthe dominantclass'scontrolover propertyin feudalismand
earlycapitalism.In late capitalism,however,the changingnatureof
the dominantclassin termsof a partialdivorcebetweenoxvnership
and controlmeansthat the dominantideologyceasesto be crucial
forthe coherenceof the dominantclass.
INTRODUCTION

The view that religion,or more generallycommon culture, can be


manipulatedto the politicaladvantageof the dominantclass can be
traced back through the rational criticism of the Enlightenment
philosophes
to Plato's 'golden lie'. However, the main impetus for
contemporaryanalysisof dominantideologiescomes from Marx and
Engels'TheGerman Ideolog)v
and, partlythroughtheinfluenceof Marxism
on the sociologyof knowledge,the thesis occurs in many areas of
sociologicalresearch,particularlyin studiesof politicsand culture.Its
argumentis, very basically,that there is in most class societies a
I50 andBryanS. Turner
;XicholasAbercrombie

pervasiveset of beliefsthat broadlyservesthe interestsof the dominant


class.This dominantideologyis then adoptedby subordinateclasses
whichare therebypreventedfromformulatinganyeffectiveopposition.
A numberof assumptions andimplicationsin thisconventionalposition
requirefurtherexamination,in particularthe notion that capitalist
societiesrequirea dominantideologyto ensurethe continuingpolitical
superiorityof the dominantclass.
In criticizingthe dominantideology thesis here we examine the
positionof subordinateclassesin feudalism,early and late capitalism,
in orderto showthat theseclassesrarely,or never,sharedthe ideology
of the dominantclass. The role of ideology in feudalismand early
capitalismwas to ensurethe accumulationand inheritanceof property
which had the effect of creatingsome politicalcoherencewithin the
dominantclass.The limitationson the spreadof dominantideologies
throughoutclasssocietywere to someextenta consequenceof the fact
that these societies did not possessan institutionalmachineryfor
disseminatingthe beliefsof dominantclasses.In late capitalismlthere
are importantchangesin the developmentof institutionswhich can
carry dominant values (such as the centralizatiorlof compulsory
education),but we suggestthat thereis still no requirement for a clearly
defineddominantideologybecauseof changesin the natureofdominant
classes.Given the historicalscope of this examination,evidencefor
certainsectionsof the argumentis necessarilyschematic.Our airrlis
primarilyto suggestvariousways of reinterpretingexistingstudiesof
ideologyin relationto classstructure.In the courseof thisreinterpreta-
tion, we wish to focuson a questionwhich has been rarelyor inade-
quatelyposed,namely,what is the functionof the dominantideology
for the dominantclass? The stagesin our argument(the ideological
conditionsof various forms of social organization,the presenceof
institutionalmeans of dissemination,the place of ideology in late
capitalism)are not intendedto be logicallydependenton each other.
Each sectionof the paperis thus a relativelyautonomouscontribution
to the debateaboutdominantideologies.
MARX S TWO THEORIES OF IDEOLOGY

Marxand Engelscan be saidto havedeveloped,at leastimplicitly,two


theoriesof ideology.The firstis basedon the formulafromthe Preface
that 'socialbeingdeterminesconsciousness' whichis usuallyinterpreted
as 'social class determinesconsciousness'.Each class by virtue of its
particularrelationshipto the meansof productionand out of its general
conditionsof existencegeneratesforitself(typicallythroughthemedium
of class intellectuals)a culturewhich gives expressionto its material
conditions.Since socialclasseshave diSerenteconomiccircumstances,
they also have diXerentinterests,so that ideas grasp, representand
promoteseparateinterests.In short,each classformsits own systemof
The dominantideologythesis I5I

beliefs,the eharaeterof whichis determinedby the particularinterests


of the elass.As Marxsaysin TheEighteenth
Brumaire ofLouisBonaparte,
Upon the differentformscsfproperty,upon the soeial eonditionsof
existence,rises an entire superstruetureof distinet and peeuliarly
formedsentiments,illusions,modesof thoughtand viewsof life. The
entireelassereatesandformsthemthroughtraditionandupbringing.2
The secondtheory,againfromthe Preface, elaimsthat 'the eeonomie
struetureof soeiety, the real foundation'determines'a legal and
politieal superstrueture'.The theory that the base determinesthe
superstruetureean be renderedin termsof elassrelationsby notingthat
the base(relationsandforeesof produetion)is assoeiatedwithdominant
and subordinateelasses whieh exereisefunetionsof (in eapitalism)
labourand eapital.The basedeterminesthe superstrueture in the sense
that eaeh mode of productionhas a dominantelasswhieh generatesa
dominantideology;the effieetof the dominantideologyis to faeilitate
the subordinationof the workingelass. The elassiealversionof this
theoryis to be found in TheGermavn Ideolog)vwhere Marx and Engels
assertthattheideasof
the rulingclassarein everyepoehthe rulingideas,i.e. the elasswhieh
is the rulingmaterialforee of soeiety,is at the same time its ruling
intellectual
foree.3
Sinee eaeh mode of productionhas a dominantelasswhieh eontrols
both materialand mentalproduetion,eaeh mode of produetionhas a
dominantideology.The dominantelassis able to imposeits systemof
beliefson all other classes.The adoptionof the ideologyof the ruling
elass by dominated classes helps to inhibit the developmentof a
revolutionary eonseiousness and therebyeontributesto the reproduction
of existingeonditionsof the appropriation of surpluslabour.
The two theoriesare potentiallyin conflietwith one another.The
firstsuggeststhat eachelassformsits own systemof beliefin aeeordance
with its own partieularinterestswhiehwill be basieallyat varianeewith
those of otherelasses.The seeondsuggeststhat all elassessharein the
systemof beliefimposedby the dominantelass.For example,aeeording
to the theoryof 'rulingideas',the Britishworkingelassin the nineteenth
eenturyshouldhavesharedthe samebeliefsasthebourgeoisie.However,
when Engelswroteaboutthe workingelass,his eommentaryillustrates
the Csoeialbeing'theoryof beliefs,namelythat eaeh elasshas its own
beliefs:
The bourgeoisiehas morein eommonwith everyothernationof the
earth than with the workersin whose midst it lives. The workers
speakother dialeets,have other thoughtsand ideals, other eustoms
andmoralprineiples,a differentreligionandotherpolitiesthanthose
of the bourgeoisie.
4
I52 ;Kicholas
Abercrombie
andBryan5. Turner

The separateinterestsand materialconditionsof the two classes


producetwo culturesratherthan a dominantideologyimposedby a
classwhichownsthe meansof mentalproduction.
It would be possibleto suggestvariousargumentswherebythese
apparentlycontradictory theoriescouldbe reconciled.In the caseof the
Britishworkingclass,one mightarguethat,forexample,theirreformist
consciousness wasoverdetermined by boththe dominantideologyof the
capitalistclassand theirown class-basedbeliefs.Our argumentin later
sectionsof this paperwill be that this type of solutionis not entirely
satisfactory.Most conventionalMarxisttheories,and more generally
sociologicaltheoriesdependenton them, eventuallycome down to an
implicitimageryof class/ideologicalrelationsin which one class (the
ruling class) doessomethingto anotherclass which is underneathit.
The resulthas beenthat Marxisttheoriesoftenobscurethe relationship
of dominantclassto dominantideology.Thereis sometimesan admis-
sion that dominantclassesdo believein theirown ideologybut we still
need to ask what are the consequencesof this for the organizationof
classrelations.By raisingthis type of question,it is possibleto pinpoint
the analyticalweaknessesof conventionalinterpretationswhich rely
too heavily on convenientsloganslike 'religionis the opium of the
masses'.
The forceof thepotentialconflictbetweenthe twotheoriesof ideology
can be underlinedby observingthat thisissuein Marxismis endemicto
contemporarysociologyin general. For example, there is a similar
analyticproblemin Parsons'theoryof socializationin dominantvalues
throughthe culturalmechanismsof the family,churchand school.The
centralityof valuesas a theoreticalsolutionfor 'the problemof order'
has made it difficultto producea theoryof the emergenceand main-
tenance of deviant,sub-culturalvalue systemsin relationto deviant
behaviour.In The SocialSystem,5Parsonssimply treats deviant role
behaviouras a productof inadequatesocialization;more typically,
sociologists6rely on Durkheimianassumptionsabout the effects of
devianceon boundarymaintenance.The problemfor functionalists,
however,arisesmost criticallyin the case of modern,differentiated
socialsystemswhich are characterizedby culturalpluralism.Differen-
tiation producessocial systemswhich are highly adapted to their
societalenvironment,but it also createsa legitimationcrisis, which
arisesfromcompetinganddiversesetsof beliefs.BergerandLuckmann's
answerappearsto be that, while pluralismdoesindeedgeneratecrises,
there exists a bed-rock('sedimentation')of taken-for-granted beliefs
which are sufficientto makeeverydayworldsmanageable.8The point
of these observationsis not to assessthe adequacyof functionalist
theoriesof knowledgebut merelyto pointout the similarityof analytic
difficultiesin functionalistsociologyand Marxism.Functionalistsare
committedbothto the notionthat a commonvaluesystemis a necessary
conditionfor the existenceof a social system, and to the theory of
Ehedominant
ideology
theszs I53
structural differentiationwhich creates pluralistic value systems.
Marxistsare committedto a theoryof 'rulingideas'and to the theory
that each class, because of its own interests,has its own unique
culture.
Thesetwo Marxisttheoriesof ideologyalsoraiseproblemsof a more
methodologicalcharacter;both have to providesome specificationof
what will count as 'the dominantideology'or 'the ideologyof a class'.
For example,many Marxisttheoriesof culturetend to renderthe doc-
trine as being one about those systemsof belief that are particularly
obvious.Thus in studyinga particularsociety'sculturethe dominant
ideologyis takento be that whichis 'obvious'or mostwidelyavailable
in writtentexts;it is simplythat set of beliefswhichoccursstatistically
most frequentlyin a sample of cultural products. The problem,
however,is not merelyone of contentanalysis;it is that the obvious
ideologymaybe that appropriateto the dominantclassbut it may also
not be. The natureof thisideologywill dependon the constitutionand
classrelationshipsof the intellectualstratum.That is, the most perva-
sive systemof belief may be that appropriateto a risingbut not yet
dominantclass.In the sixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,forexample,
individualistdoctrinesof all kindswere prominent,althoughthey are
beliefsthat are oftensaidto be appropriateto a capitalistclassthat was
not then economicallyor politicallydominant.Everythingin casesof
this kind dependson the characterof the apparatusthat createsand
distributesknowledgeand opinion,and, in particular,on the constitu-
tion and classaffiliationof the intellectualstratum.Intellectualsare not
alwayscloselyboundto the dominantclassand,whenthey arenot, it is
not unlikelythat the most pervasivebeliefswill not be those of the
dominantclass.In sum, conventionalinterpretations of the dominant
ideology thesis often do not indicate how such ideologiesare to be
identified,andareequallyunspecificabouttheiractualcontent.
THE DOMINANT IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL CLASSES

The basic assumptionof the 'rulingideas'modelis that the dominant


class, becauseit controlsthe means of mental production,is able to
force,or at leastensure,that the dominatedclassesthinktheirthoughts
withinthe conceptsprovidedby the beliefsystemsof the dominantclass.
It may even be that the rebellionsand protestsof the subordinate
classesare expressedthroughthe mediumof the dominantideology
sincearticulate,oppositionalformsof thoughtare not available.At the
very least, the theorymust assumethat thereis a commonculturein
whichall classesshareand that the contentand themesof that common
culturearedictatedby the dominantclass.In factit is typicallythe case
that subordinateclassesdo not believe (share,accept) the dominant
ideologywhichhasfar moresignificanceforthe integrationand control
of the dominantclassitself.
I54 AicholasAbercrombie
andBryanS. Turner

In Capital,
Marxstatesthat
the mode of productionof materiallife dominatesthe development
of social, politicaland intellectuallife generally. . . is very true for
our own times,in whichmaterialinterestspreponderate,but not for
the middleages, in which Catholicism,nor for Athensand Rome,
wherepolitics,reignedsupreme.9
This observationby Marx has been elaboratedby Marxistslike
Althusserand Poulantzasl°to meanthat the economicbasedetermines
whichstructure(politics,ideologyor the economic)in any givenmode
of productionis dominant.Elriefly,
thisview of politicaland ideological
structuresmeansthat certainmodesof productionmay requirefunc-
tionalsupportfrom'non-economicfactors'.In feudalism,for example,
wherepeasantsby customaryrighthave eertainprivilegesoverthe use
of land, extra-economicmeans (political/ideologicalstructures)are
requiredin orderto extractlabour-service fromthe peasantry.Hence,
Poulantzaswantsto arguethat religionwas a dominantregionof the
ideologicalstructurein societiescharacterizedby the feudal mode of
production.This theory would imply, in terms of the 'rulingideas'
model, that the peasantrysharedthe religionof feudal lords or, to
employa term favouredby Poulantzas,the peasantrywere 'contami-
nated' by the ideology of the landlordswith the effect that their
revolutionaryinterestswere impeded.
In general,thereare good groundsfor believingthat the European
peasantryexistedoutsidethe ambitof thedominantChristianorthodoxy
of the Churchas a rulinginstitution.The peasantryweresymbolically
separatedfrom the oflicial mysteriesof the Churchby the liturgical
rituals;whereasin the early Churchthe priesthad celebratedMass
facingthepeople,in the medievalperiod
he turnedhis back on them and retreatedto the fastnessesof the
sanctuary,separatedfrom the people's part of the Church by a
forbiddingscreen.Finally,the Masswas readin a tonguethe people
could not understand.ll
On the faceof it, the developmentof the confessional
in the thirteenth
eenturyas a public, compulsoryobligationon all believersunderthe
monopolyof the Churchwhichdistributedgracefromthe Treasuryof
Merit,wouldlooklikestrongevidencefor 'therulingideas'model.The
problemis that, while the peasantryprobablyonly attendeda short
shrifton majorand minorfestivalsand while absenteeismwas rife,the
nobilityhad spiritualdirectorsin constantattendance.It would seem
odd that the dominantclassshouldbe more plaguedby problemsof
guilt and conformitythan the dominatedclasses.Some doctrinesin
secularas well as religioususe, mightalsobe seenas candidatesfor the
functionof the dominantideology.The 'GreatChainof Being',l2for
The dominant
ideologythesis I55

instance,was a theory of the rankingof all beings in the universe,


startingwith God and the angels,workingthroughthe variouscondi-
tions of men, and endingwith the animals.Althoughsuch a doctrine
appearedto give religiousand evennaturalsanctionto the feudalsocial
order,it wassimplynot generallyavailableto the peasantrysinceit was
so oftencouchedin an intellectualized form.
Religionis oftencited as thedominantideologyof the feudalperiod.
However,anotherexamplewould be the role of theocratictheoriesof
kingshipin medievalsociety.Kingshipwas legitimatedon one of two
principles.The popular(ascending)theorysuggestedthat the kingwas
a landlordwho, like otherlandlords,had responsibilities to societyand
was answerableto the communityforthe exerciseof his privileges.The
sacramental(descending)theory stated that the king was above
societyand responsibleto God not men. A dominantideologyof this
sortshouldpresumablyserveto legitimatekingshipto the subordinate
class,but in practicethe mainsignificanceof the debateoverthe nature
of kingshipwasto establisha relationshipbetweenbaronsand the king.
The doctrineof theocratickingshipwasutilizedtojustifythe kingto his
barons,not to the peasantry.
These issues concerningthe religiosityof the peasantryand the
institutionaldominanceof the Churchbeardirectlyon the problemof
secularization.Whilemanysociologistsof religionhavebeencommitted
to the historicalmyth that the feudal period was an 'age of faith',
Martin Goodridgel3has recently re-examinedcomprehensivelythe
contemporaryevidenceon religion among the peasantryin France,
Italy and Englandto showthat the peasantrywas generallyalienated
fromthe orthodoxbeliefsand institutionsof the officialChurch.While
the rural clergy were symbolicallyinfluential,they were often an
unreliablechannelfor (Christian belief;they were, even in nineteenth-
centuryFrance,too badlyeducatedto providesermons.l4Throughout
the medievalperiod, the Churchappearsto have experiencedgreat
difficultyin ensuringthat someof its minimalrequirements, suchas the
Eastercommunion,wereadheredto by the poorersectionsof thelaity.15
Our argumenthereis probablymostaptlysummarizedby the religious
sociologist,GabrielLe Bras
Catholicismwas the ruler'sreligion.Civilregisterswere kept by the
priests. Basic acts of Christianlife were imposed by canon law.
Orthodoxywas strictlyenforcedto discourageheresyand schism.
Christianitycame to be the religionof the Frenchby virtue of the
monarchicalconstitution.l6
Official Christianityappearsto have been relativelyunsuccessfulin
securingthe rural peasantrywithin the preciseconfinesof orthodox
beliefand practice.
A similarkindof argumentappliesto earlycapitalistsocieties.Again
the conventionalview is that there was a dominantideologywhich
I56 J<icholas
Abercrombie
andBryanS. Turner

infeetedthe workingelass.It is suggested,forexample,that individual-


ism, espeeiallyas expressedin the doetrinesof the Britishutilitarians,
was the keyeomponentof the dominantideologyof the bourgeoisieand
penetratedall featuresof bourgeoispolitieal eeonomy,moralityand
religion.Bourgeoispolitiealeeonomy(la?ssez faire,the night-watehman
state, the individualeonseienee)is usuallyregardedas the dominant
ideologyof a soeialelasswhiehwas eeonomieallyand politieallytrium-
phantafterI850.17Thereare a numberof problemswith thisinterpre-
tation.The syndromeof beliefsassoeiatedwithindividualismhasa rrery
aneientancestryand this makesit difficultto eonneetindividualismin
any speeifie way with modernbourgeoiseapitalism. For example,
Goldmann'sThe Philosophy of theEnlightenmentl8 eonneetsthe beliefs
eoncernedwith eontraet, individualism,free will, universalismand
equalitywith the riseof eommereialmarketsas earlyas the thirteenth
eentury.Similarly,Chenul9tracesthe riseof the individual,subjeetive
eonscieneeand the transformation of moralityfromobjeetivelaws to
subjeetiveintentionfromthe growthof urbanmarketsin the thirteenth
eentury. In Britain, elear indieationsof 'bourgeoiseulture' (indi-
vidualism,eonscience,rights, eontraet)ean plainly be found in the
seventeentheentury.The implicationof these analysesof the early
originsof 'bourgeoiseulture'is that the so-ealleddominantideologyof
earlycapitalismwasin faetthe ideology,not of a dominantclass,but of
an ascendantclass.The doetrinesof the autonomous,subjeetiveindi-
vidualwereusedby the commercial,ascendingbourgeoisieto eritieize
and ehallengethe ideologicalstatus quo. Further,this oppositionaland
pristineindividualismbeeomesverymuehalteredas the eapitalistmode
of productionbeeomes established.This developmentean be most
clearlyseenin the evolutionof Britishutilitarianism. Bentham'sstudies
of the Britishlegalsystemwerean attaekon eonventional jurisprudence
which he regardedas servingthe interestsof the landed aristocracy
ratherthan the bourgeoisie.Benthamitephilosophywas an attaekon
the 'sinisterinterests'whichprevailedin parliament(thatis, the over-
representation of aristoeratiefamilies).By eontrast,the laterphilosophy
ofJ. S. Mill had muehmoreeonservative implieations.Mill,frightened
by the prospectof an uneducatedworkingelasseontrollingparliament
and influencedby de Toqueville'sstudyof Americandemoeraey,wrote
to defendparliamentary institutionsfor the beneStof the middleelass
whichwas beingunderminedby a proletarianmass.20 Towardsthe end
of classicalutilitarianindividualism,Spencerattemptedto providean
evolutionistdefenceof the individualagainststate interventionin a
periodwhenthe state was becomingincreasinglyimportantfor British
capitalism(in edueation,sanitation,town planning,economicprotec-
tion, overseasexpansion).Evenif we did assumethatindividualismwas
the dominantideologyof capitalism,it wouldbe difficultto showthat
the workingclassin Britishcapitalismaetuallyadheredto thesebeliefs.
At best, it might be possibleto show that the labouraristocracywas
fAe dominantideologythesis I57

utilitarianand that as the labour aristocracybecame increasingly


influentialin the leadershipof the tradeunionsafterthe I 880s,working
classbeliefswere'contaminated' by the dominantideology.
Thereare,of course,a numberof othercandidatesforthe roleof 'the
dominant ideology' in early capitalismeOne such is Methodism.
Thompsonhasarguedthat
Methodismobtainedits greatestsuccessin servingsimultaneously as
the religionof the industrialbourgeoisie. . . and of wide sectionsof
the proletariat.2l
In the debateoverMethodismfromHalevy to Simmel,Thompson's
argumentdoes, of course,have some support,but the strengthof his
positionis weakenedwhen one considersthat, afterthe great boomin
Methodism(in termsof membership/population ratios)betweenI800
and I850, all branchesof Methodismnever amountedto more than
32 per cent of the total population.22 Radicalworking-class Methodists
tendedto leave theirpredominantlypettybourgeoischapelsbecauseof
the 'no politicsrule'whichsuccessfullydivorcedreligionfrompolitical
struggle.23 The problemof any argumentwhichwouldregardreligion
in generalas an aspectof the dominantideologyof capitalismis thatthe
workingclasswas largely'unchurched'by I85I.24It is difficultto see
how the churchescould efficientlyand effectivelydispensethe 'opium
of the masses'whenthe workingclasswereabsentfromthe churches.
The counter-argument would be that, while the organized churches
had failedto securethe allegianceof the workingclassto the dominant
ideology,the workingclasswerestilldominatedby cVictorianmorality'
and religionthroughother,sometimesunofficial,means.The dominant
Victorianmoralnormsof respectability,sexualpuritanism,aspiration
and asceticismwere in fact the normsof the workingclass. Unfor-
tunately,this secondaryargumentis also totallyunconvincing.Engels'
view that the two classesof VictorianBritainweretwo racesapartwith
differentreligions,moralitiesand politicsis much closerto the mark.
Primaryand secondaryevidenceall point to the fact that, in termsof
religionandmorality,the workingclassandthe capitalistclassoccupied
separatecultures.25 It is worthrecallingthatWeber'sextensiveresearch
in the comparativesociologyof religionled him to the view that the
modernworkingclassis 'characterized by indifferenceto or rejectionof
religion'becausein capitalistconditions
the senseof dependenceon one'sown achievements is supplantedby a
consciousness of dependenceon purelysocialfactors,marketcondi-
tions,and powerrelationships guaranteedby law . . . the rationalism
of the proletariat,lilQethat of the bourgeoisieof developedcapitalism
. . . cannotin the natureof the caseeasilypossessa religiouscharacter
andcertainlycannoteasilygeneratea religion.26
Attemptsby Englishcapitalistslike WilliamIbbotson,the ownerof a
I58 JV^icholas
Abercrombie
andBryanS. Turner

Sheffieldsteel works,to use Christianityto disciplinefactoryworkers


were,as a consequence,repeatedlyunsuccessful.27
So farwe havearguedthatin feudalismand earlycapitalism,thereis
little convincing evidence to suggest that the subordinateclasses
acceptedtlzedominantideology.In late capitalismthe positionis more
complicated.Thus,it is oftenarguedthat thereis a dominantideology
whichis a majorfactorin inhibitingthe developmentof a revolutionary
consciousnessin the workingclass. Miliband,for example,drawson
Gramsci'sconceptof hegemonyto suggestthat there is, in Western
capitalist societies, 'a process of massive indoctrination'.28 This is
achievedas 'the resultof a permanentand pervasiveeffiort,conducted
througha multitudeof agencies'and specificallyby the eSortof mem-
bersof the dominantclasseswho 'are able, by virtueof theirposition,
for instance as employers,to dissuademembersof the subordinate
classes,if not fromholding,at least fromvoicingunorthodoxviews'.29
However,mostcontemporary sociologicalresearchrejectsthe'dominant
ideology'view in favourof an accountof Britishworkingclassculture
which stressesits dualisticcharacter.There has recentlybeen a great
deal of workon this issueand, althoughthereare clearlydifferencesof
emphasis between various authors, the overall conclusionis that
workingclassconsciousness is characterizedby a fluctuatingrelation-
ship between'dominant'and 'subordinate'conceptions.For example,
Hill in a recentstudyof dockworkers 30 concludedthat workers would
adopt more 'militant'posturesin concretesituations,like the issueof
trade unionism at the workplace,than they would towards more
abstractquestions,like the significanceof trade union power at the
nationallevel.Again,Mannconcludesthat 'at everyturnwe havebeen
confrontedby a profounddualismin the worker'ssituationand his
consciousness.... Surgesof classconsciousness arecontinuallyundercut
by economismand capitalismsurvives'.3lParkinsees the normative
order as being made up of three competing meaning systems a
dominantvalue system,a subordinatevalue systemwhich promotes
accommodativeresponsesto inequMity,and a radical value system
which promotesopposition.Thus, in 'mostWesternsocietiesall three
meaning-systerrls tend to influencethe socialand politicalperceptions
of the sub-ordinateclass'32althoughit is still the case that different
groupswill have differentialaccessto eachof the three.Otherwriters33
suggestthat two formsof consciousness, the dominantideologyand a
form of oppositionalbelief, coexist in the workingclass and are in
tensionwith one another.Eachsystemof beliefcomesto the surfaceat
differenttimes.The latteris mobilizedin periodsof conflict,particularly
in strikes,while the formeris adoptedas a set of beliefsappropriateto
morepeaceabletimes.In sum, we suggestthat, at least, the literature
demonstratesthe minimumconclusionnecessaryfor our argument,
namely that subordinateclassesin contemporarycapitalismdo not
straightforwardlyadoptthe dominantideology.
ideologythesis
The dominant I59

The conclusionthat dominantideologiesare not held, or are held in


a moderatedway, by subordinateclasses,clearly conflictswith the
conventional'rulingideas'model.Further,this modelhas little to say
aboutthe mannerin whichthe dominantclassesdo or do not hold the
dominantideology.This problemis thoughtto be of little significance
and the onlyrelevantpointseemsto be thatthe dominantclassesshould
not be seen as cynicallymanipulatingthe dominatedclasses;they do
believe what they say. We wish to argue that just as the dominated
classesdo notholdthe dominantideology,the dominantclassesdo.This
implies a redirectionof sociologicalinterests,for the chief impactof
dominantbeliefsis on the dominantnot the dominatedclasses.To use
anothervocabulary,the prime functionof the dominantideologyis
towardsthe dominantclass.To someextentwe have alreadymadethis
pointin the earlierdiscussion.The dominantclasseshavebeenboththe
bearers and the recipientsof orthodox religiosity,of conventional
moralityand conformistpolitics.While the shriftof the peasantwas
short and infrequent,the confessionsof noblesunder the guidanceof
spiritualdirectorswaslong andpermanent.Attemptsto enforceregular
confessionson the poor usually drove the laity from the Church.34
Again the doctrines of individualismand utilitarianismwere not
formulatedor appreciatedby the workingclass; they were abstract
theoriesproducedby intellectuals.Evento the extentthatindividualism
mouldedreligiousbeliefs, the dominatedclassesremainedrelatively
untouched.Again the 'true'believersin the personalmoralityof the
Victorianperiodwerethe bourgeoisie.
THE APPARATUS OF TRANSMISSION

The eSect of our argumentso far is to turn the conventionalruling


ideas model on its head for we have suggestedthat, in termsof what
people believe, the dominantideology has a greaterimpact on the
dominantclassesthan on the dominated.This conclusionis supported
by someconsideration of the apparatusby whichbeliefsarecreatedand
transmitted.This is an area in which the classicalMarxisttheoryis
comparativelyweak. In that theorythe rulingclasshas to 'persuade'
subordinateclassesof the truth and moralrelevanceof a set of beliefs
whichare contraryto the interestsof the subordinateclass.This would
seem to imply the existenceof an extremelypowerfulset of agencies
whichtransmitbeliefsdownwardsfromthe dominantclassesand it has
often seemed difficultto show that the agenciesavailable are that
powerful.We nowattemptto arguethatthe apparatuses of transmission
of beliefare not very efficient
in reachingthe subordinate clasess,and
moreover,are morelikelyto affectthe dominantclass.For example,in
feudalsocieties,the Church,in the formof preachers,mendicantmonks
and priests,constitutedthe mainagentof transmissionof the ideological
structure.However,the actualpracticeof the Churchwas to erectboth
I60 JAicholas
Abercrombie
andBryanS. Turner

languageand ritualbarriersbetweenpeasantlaity and priesthood.In


additionthe medievalChurehwas charaeterizedby massiveregional,
nationaland culturaldiversities.In theserespeetsthe teachingsof the
Churchwerelikelyto be impenetrableto the peasantrybutlessso to the
rathermoreliteratedominantelasswho in any case would have had
closepersonaleontactwith the priesthood.35 In earlyeapitalism,as we
have alreadyindicated,the Churchwas even lessopen to the subordi-
nateclasses,andat thistimethe apparatusof transmission wasprobably
at its weakest.However,the developmentof mass educationand a
systemof mass communieationdo seem to promisea more effeetive
apparatus.Nonethelessit couldbe arguedthat the edueationavailable
to the elite, partieularlyin the nineteenthand the first half of the
twentietheentury,is a greatdeal moreintensiveand morelikelyto be
formativeof a coherentset of beliefsthanthat providedforthe subordi-
nate classes.36We coneludethat, until fairly recently,the dominant
classes were greatly more exposed to the apparatusof ideological
distributionthan were the subordinateelassesand that they still are
exposedto at leastthe samedegree.One ean suggestthat the faet that
the apparatushasbeeomepotentiallymoreeffieientis one of the reasons
that subordinateelassesin eontemporary soeietyhavebeendrawnmore
eloselyinto the dominantideology.Therefore,we do not wishto argue
that the dominantideologyis neverbelievedby the subordinateelasses,
only that it is more pertinentfor the dominantelasses.It eould be
arguedthat any ideologiealineorporationis a secondary effieetof the
developmentofthe edueationalsystem.
These argumentspromptthe suggestionthat the dominantideology
does not funetionto seeure eomplianeefrom the dominatedelasses.
Indeedit mightbe said that compliance of this kind (or even pragmatie
aeeeptanee)is irrelevantas long as there are other meehanismsof
eoercion.In Britishfeudalism,the strugglefor controlof the meansof
productionwas settled eventuallyby enclosures,not religion. The
alternativeto ideologicalcomplianceis, however,notinevitablyto resort
to force. The conventionalMarxist 'rulingideas' model is, at least
eovertly,tinged with Weberianism;it restspartlyon the assumption
that without eontinuouslegitimationsoeial aetorswill not aeeept a
soeialsystemwhiehrelieson the frequentemploymentof nakedforee.
For eonventionalMarxism,the dominantideologyhas the effeet of
makingpower appearlegitimatein the eyes of the dominatedelass.
Whilethe rulingelassmay well desirea situationin whiehsubordinate
elassesaeeeptexistingelassrelationsas legitimateor Godgiven,thereis
a sensein whiehthisformof eomplianeemay be unneeessary.In modes
of produetionwherethe subordinateelasseshave been alienatedfrom
the meansof produetion(forexample,eompetitiveeapitalism),the fact
that workershave to labourto live will itself eonstitutea permanent
pressuretowardstheir co-optation(Marx's 'the dull eompulsionof
economicrelations').One illustrationof this pressurecan be foundin
Ehe dominant
ideologythesis I6I

the fact that peasant oppositionto feudal authoritywas typically


seasonalsince,particularlyat harvesttime, the conditionsof everyday
life in peasant agriculturesystematicallyinhibited active, sustained
opposition.37Similarly,banditrywas a seasonaloccupationof un-
attachedmen.38In capitalism,the 'coercionof everydaylife' is rein-
forcedby the fact that urbanworkersduringeconomiccrisescannot
returnto self-sufficiency
oSthe land;the samealsoholdsforagricultural
wage labourers.In capitalism, especially before unionization,the
workingclass is effiectivelycontrolledby everydayexigenciesin that
capitalistsdecomposelabour by employingmigrant,women or child
labourers,extendthe workingday or ensurethat necessarylabourtime
is at the bare minimum.We do not of coursewish to exaggerateour
argumentwith the claim that the coercionof the workplaceor the
routine of everydaylife is a complete explanationof workingclass
quiescenceand that ideologyis completelyirrelevant.However,we do
wish to suggestthat the importanceof ideologicalcomplianceis exag-
geratedand that the real significanceof the dominantideologylies in
the organizationof the dominantclassratherthanin the subordination
of dominatedclasses.
THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF LATE CAPITALISM

In earlierpartsof this paperwe arguedthat the workingclassin late


capitalismdoes not in any straightforward sense adopt the dominant
ideology.The best interpretationof workingclassconsciousness is that
it is dualistic, involving some accommodationwith the dominant
ideology. Connectedwith this featureis the greaterefficiencyof the
apparatusof transmissionof dominantbeliefs.In sum, our argument
that dominantideologyfunctionsfor the dominantratherthan sub-
ordinateclasshas to be expressedless forcefullyfor the contemporary
phaseof capitalismthan for eitherfeudalismor competitivecapitalism,
althoughthe generaldriftof the argumentcanstillbe sustained.
We now have to re-examinethese argumentsby consideringthe
ideologicalstructureof monopolycapitalism.This is a large subject,
and ourcommentsarenecessarilybriefandschematic.Again,our main
intentionis to castdoubton the conventionalinterpretation.
Sociological interpretationsof the ideological structure of late
capitalismarenotablefortheirlackof specificity,but,moreimportantly,
for their bewilderingvariety.The readeris offieredan enormousrange
of characterizationsof beliefrangingfromthe advocacyof the rightsof
privatepropertyto doctrinesof utilitarianism.We will arguein the last
sectionof thispaperthat manyof thesecharacterizations areanachron-
istic in the sense that they are more appropriateto early capitalist
societies.However,the diversityof dominantideologieson offiermay
indicatemorethan a simplefailureto agreesinceit may suggestthat
there are good groundsfor supposingthat thereis no stronglymarked
L
I62 XicholasAbercrombie
andBryanS. Turner
dominantideologyin moderncapitalistsocieties.Whereas
played an importantfunctionin the ideologyof early moralbeliefs
moralregionof ideologyis moreor lessirrelevantin latecapitalism,the
capitalism
supportingthe economic and political place of the dorninant for
Morepreciselywe wouldlike to arguethat thereis only a class.
defineddominantideologyand there is considerable very weakly
life-worlds'.39 'pluralizationof
The net effectis that thereis a lesserdegreeof ideological
coherencein late capitalistsocietiesthan in the othersthat we
discussed.That thereareparadoxesin this positionwill be have
it involvestakingseriouslythe conclusions,thoughnot plain, since
the
two argumentsoften thought to be discredited,namelyreasoning,of
the 'End of
Ideology'thesis,and the view that the diversityof opinionand
themodernworldis sociologicallysignificant. beliefin
In the I gsos politicalsociologyclaimedthat advanced
capitalism
characterized by the end of ideology.40The liberal ideologiesof was
Westhad solvedthe majorinstitutionalproblemsof the
tionwith the resultthat the ideologiesof the Left,whichpolitical participa-
classconflict,werenow irrelevant.A typicalresponseto presupposed
toprovideevidenceof continuingclassstruggle,social this thesiswas
ideologicalconfrontation.Thus, Miliband in The State inequalityand
in Catitalist
Societypointedto the crucialrole of legitimatinginstitutions
church,school,massmedia)in maintainingandjustifyingthe (family,
system of classinequality.Morerecently,Westergaard capitalist
and Reslerhave
argued thatthe ideologyof privateproperty,individualism
mentis closelyconnectedwithcontinuedexistenceof socialandachieve-
Theoddityof thisreplyto the endof ideologythesisis thatitinequalities.
supposed regardsthe
dominantideologyof early capitalism(such as laissez-faire
liberalism) to be alsothe dominantideologyof latecapitalism.This
oftheoreticalresponseconsequentlyignores major type
changes in the
institutional formsof capitalism(suchas changesin formsof ownership,
controland possession)and changesin the natureof the capitalist
Infact, the ideologyof ownersof small capitalistfirmsin class.
sectoris frequentlyin oppositionto the beliefsand the private
interestsof large
capitalistenterprises,multinationalfirms and the state
These conflictsbetweendifferentsectorsof capital find part industries.
of their
ideological expressionin Britainin policy struggleswithin the Con-
servative Party between differentgroups ho represent
interests conflicting
within capital.Since early and late capitalismin Britain
still
based on a form of socio-economicorganizationwhere are
privately profit is
appropriated,it is to be expectedthat beliefsand institutions
connected with the supportof privatepropertywouldcontinueto
animportantpart in the ideologicalsystem of capitalism,but play it is
difficult
to claim that this feature of the ideology of
dominant. capitalism is
The end of ideology thesis focused on the issue of
whether the
subordinate classessvereno longer committedto radical alternative
The dominant
ideologythesis I63

politics.We wouldsuggesta reinterpretation of thisissueby lookingat


the commitmentof the dominantclassto variousideologies.It couldbe
claimedthatthe dominantclasswascharacterized by an endof ideology
in the I950S and early I960S in Britainin the limited sense that the
variouscomponentsof the dominantclass convergedon a common
politicalplatform,namelythe 'welfareconsensus'.4lFor example,in
the post-warera therewas at least minimalagreementover the mixed
economy,industrialefficiency,the importanceof welfareprovision,the
need for formal equality of opportunityin education and so on.
Identificationwiththisformof consensualpoliticsrepresenteda balance
between the interestsof various sectionsof society, althoughits net
effectwas to favourthe interestsof one particularfractionof capital.
The so-called 'dominant ideology' of late capitalism is thus at
best an uneven and uneasy amalgamof assumptionsabout private
propertyand about the importanceof state interventionin economic
life.
Our reinterpretation of the end of ideologythesisinvolvesthe claim
that thereis no decisive,clearlyarticulatedand uniformset of beliefs
which provides comprehensivecoherence for the dominant class.
Anothermannerof expressingthis positionwould be to suggestthat
there has been a proliferationor pluralizationof beliefs,world-views
and ideologies,an argumentvery familiarto sociologists.42 We would
arguethat the proliferationof world-views,thoughconfinedmostlyto
the moralsphere,is significant.One indexof the end of a centralideo-
logy in the regionof moralityis the developmentof certaindoctrinesin
moralphilosophywhereit isnolongerpossibleto specifyin anycoherent,
authoritativefashionwhat will count as 'duty'or 'responsibility'.The
changesin moralphilosophyfrom Mooreto Ayer presentsan ethical
map of the transitionswithin the capitalistmode of production.43
Of course,the fact that pluralismand secularizationappearto attend
the differentiationand specializationof socialsystemshas been specifi-
callycommentedon by sociologists.Forexample,BergerandLuckmann
claimthatin a pluralisticsocietythereexists
a sharedcoreuniversetakenforgrantedas such,and differentpartial
universescoexistingin a stateof mutualaccommodation. . . outright
conflictbetweenideologieshas been replacedby varyingdegreesof
toleranceor evencooperation.44

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION ?

In the earlierpartsof this paperwe have argued,as againstthe con-


ventional'ruling-ideasmodel',that ( I ) subordinateclassesin generaldo
not holdthe dominantideology(2) rulingclassesgenerallydo holdit (3)
considerationof the apparatusof transmission of belieflendsplausibility
to (I) and (2), and (4) in modern capitalismthere is not such a
I64 AicholasAbercrombie
andBryanS. Turner

well-defineddominantideology. Completenesswould requirea well


constructedalternativetheoryof the dominantideologywhich would
accountforthesephenomena.We do not attemptsucha theory.Rather
we offiersome commentswhich might form its outline, an outline
whichis stillconsistentwithMarx'sotherpostulates.
We suggestthat the dominantideologyis best seen as securingthe
coherenceof the dominantclass.This is clearlynot an argumentabout
the requirements of a modeof productionat a general,abstractlevel as
is provided,forexample,by Hindessand Hirst.45 In factwe believethat
it is impossibleto producea conceptof ideologyas a requirementat the
level of mode of production,and that thereare in any case important
difficultiesassociatedwith the distinctionbetween pure modes of
productionand concrete social formations. 46 It could be argued,
therefore,that our discussionis pitched at an intermediatelevel in
the sense that it makesclaims about the necessaryrequirementsof
capitalismas that mode of productiondevelopedin a particularkind
of society.
In feudalism and early capitalism, the conservationof private
property its inheritance,distribution,accumulationandinvestment-
was of crucialsignificancefor the continuityand reproductionof rela-
tionsof production.In concreteterms,securechannelsforthe conserva-
tion and accumulationof property were necessaryconditions of
existencefor the maintenanceand expansionof the feudalmanorand
the familyfirm.Re-formulating Marx,we mightexpressthissignificance
by saying that, from this requirementof property,there arose a
superstructure of political,legal and moralbeliefswhichgraspedat the
level of ideas,thisfunctionalrequirement.Privatepropertyin land and
capital requireda relativelystable marriagesystem, clear laws of
inheritance, principles of legitimacy, adoption and re-marriage.
The dominantideology providedthis complex of legal, moral and
religiousvalues which have the functionof conservingproperty.In
addition,the dominantideologyprovideda psychologyof guilt which
inhibitedillicitsexuality,disregardof parents'wishesforsuitablemates,
respectfor the (economic)needsof the family.In short,the dominant
ideology was aimed at preventing 'marryingout' an act which
threatens the continuity and concentrationof family wealth. In
feudalism,it was Catholicism,on the one hand, and the systemof
honour,on the other,which providedthe ideologicalmechanismsfor
insuringthe loyalty of sons and daughtersto family property.The
confessionalsystemof family spiritualdirectorswas ideally suited to
achievingthis aim since it providedconstantsupervisionof orthodox
(conformist)patternsof sexuality,duty and marriage.The dominant
ideology was only in a very secondaryfashion concernedwith the
sexuallife of peasantsand workers.The stabilityof peasantfamilieswas
of little interestto landlordsconcernedwith the selectionof suitable
matesand dowriesfortheirsons,the constancyof theirspousesand the
The dominant
ideologythesis I65

good behaviourand honourof daughters.One might say that feudal


lordswereas worriedby romanticloureas they wereby the prospectof
peasantrebellions.
The religiousandmoralcoreof the dominantideologythusattempted
to guaranteethe familyas a mechanismforthe conservation ofproperty;
it functionedto providea degreeof normativecoherencein the domi-
nant class.Otheraspects legal and political-were also significantin
providingthis coherence.The dominantideologyhad to minimizethe
possibilityof fractionswithinthe dominantclasswhichwouldchallenge
its coherence.The longstrugglein medievalsocietiesoverthe theocratic
and feudalcharacterof the kingrepresentedsuch an attemptto estab-
lish a common basis between barons and the king. The dominant
ideologywas a culturalmechanismwhichhad the roleof protectingthe
dominantclass from the threatsof intra-andinter-classstruggles.It
effiectivelyunifiedthe dominantclass by imposinga code of morality
uponit, by ensuringthat membersof the classmoreor lessbelievedthe
same thing. These dominantmoralitiesin feudalismand earlycapital-
ism were also markedlyinegalitarian,a featurewhose effect was to
separatethe dominantclass (in its own eyes) from other classes.In
feudalism,honourwas a personalstatusinheritedby noble birthwhich
eliminatedtlle peasantryfrom the circle of culturalvalue. In early
capitalism,the ethicof achievementservedto definethe wealthyas the
religiouslysaved.While mostcommentariesby conventionalMarxism
on the dominantideologyof competitivecapitalismhave focusedon
political ideology (such as individualpolitical rights), moralitywas
probablymoresignificantforthe system.47Furthermore, the accumula-
tion of capitalin earlycapitalismin Britainwas heavilydependenton
privatelygeneratedinvestmentfunds,an additionalindicationof the
importanceof the coherenceof thepropertyowningclass.
The existenceof a dominantmoralideologydoesnot, of course,imply
that it will be uniformlyimposed on the dominant class without
oppositionfromcertainstrataor fractionswithin that dominantclass.
The traditionof CourtlyLove,forexample,was at one learelan obvious
threatto the moralcodeof the noblefamily.However,the mainthemes
of Courtly Love poetry (humility,courtesy,adulteryand romantic
sexuality),recognizedthat,sincemarriagewasin facta contractforthe
securityof property,romanticlove could only exist outsidemarriage.
CourtlyLove, while appearingto be a form of deviancewithin the
dominantfeudalclass,in fact gave explicitrecognitionto the contrac-
tual significanceof marriagefor property.This traditionof poetryalso
recognizedthat romanticlove was necessarilyephemeraland insigni-
ficant when contrastedwith the sacredvalues for which the Church
stood.48Romantic poetry gave expressionto a form of aristocratic
truancyratherthanopenrebellion.Similarly,the existenceofsystematic
prostitutionin VictorianLondongave tacit supportto the idea that
marriagewas a contractratherthan a romantic/sexualrelationship.
I66 ;#icholasAbercrombie
andBryanS. Turner
Our argumentis that 'Victorianmorality'with its emphasison sexual
control,paternalauthorityand family loyaltywas importantfor the
controlof familyproperty.We are, of course,awareof contemporary
reappraisalsof the traditionalview that all Victorianswere sexually
inhibited.It is in fact quiteclearthat thereweremany 'OtherVictor-
ians'withsecretlivesinvolvingpornography,prostitution,homosexual-
ity and perversion.Our argumentfor the economicrole of Victorian
moralbeliefsdoes not requirethat thereshouldbe no deviancewithin
the dominantclassesor their middle class agents. The notion that
marriagewas a contractratherthan a sexualunioncarriedwith it the
implicationthat sexual entertainmentshad to be sought outsidethe
home. Two commentson My SecretLife a boolcrepresentativeof
Victorian pornography are importantin this connection.49Firstly,
the existenceof organizedprostitutionwas very much an 'opensecret'
especiallyin London and the large sea-ports.Secondly,this sexual
autobiographyis in many respectsan anthropologicalexplorationof
the sordidunderworldassociatedwithcertainworkingclassoccupations.
It servesto demonstratethe gulf which separatedthe workingand
upperclassesin termsof moralexpectationsin VictorianEngland.The
devianceof a numberof eminentVictoriansand the availabilityof
organizedprostitutionand commercializedpornographythus provide
paradoxicalsupportfortheviewthattherewaswidespreadcommitment
in the dominantclass for preservingmarriageas a viable economic
contract.On the basisof his comprehensive studyof Victoriansexuality,
Pearsallcomesto the conclusionthat the exoticpornographicinterests
of Victorianslike Richard Burton, FrederickHankey and Henry
Ashbeewerethe productof a societywhichwasbasedon a
conspiracyto keep sex where it belonged in silenceand between
sheets.... There was hardlyroom at all for prosaicsex; wheresex
was mentionedit was in nutty, esoteric,exotic. . . ultra-romantic
contexts.50

The peculiaritiesof Victorianpornographyand sexualdeviancepoints,


therefore,to the coherenceof 'familymorality'as the dominantmoral
codeof theVictoriancapitalistclass.
By contrastthe coherenceof the dominantclassin late capitalismis
relatively
unimportantsincethe economicfunctioningof thisformis not
dependenton the existenceof a dominantclasswhich retainscapital
withinthe familystructure.For example,monopolyfirms (especially
multinationalcorporations)are not familyfirms,they are not privately
owned,and they do not generallydependon inheritedor familycapital
forfinance.Insteadthey have recourseto financialinstitutions(banks,
the state, pensionfunds,stockmarket).This indicatesthe real signifi-
canceof the divorcebetweenownershipand control.It is not that the
divorceweakensthe conceptof a dominantclass;ratherit is that this
classno longerrepresentsthe privateownershipand controlof capital.
Thedominant
ideology
thesis I67
The implicationof this argumentis that, as comparedwith early
capitalism,there is relatively
less need for a dominant ideology in
monopolycapitalism.
Finally, we should add two points of clarification.Firstly, one
shouldnot exaggeratethe differencebetweenformsor stagesof capital-
ism. For example, we have distinguishedbetween early and late
capitalism.Howeverthese are still formsof capitalism and we suggest
that associatedwith any form of capitalismthere must be certain
doctrinesor beliefs,in particularthose stressingthe rightsof private
property.Thus in late capitalismthereis still a residueof such beliefs
though a dominantideologygreatlymore extensivethan this is not
present.Secondly,we do not deny the existenceof a propertiedclassin
late capitalism.We suggestthat this is ratheran effectof the continued
private appropriationof profit rather than one of its conditionsof
existence.
J<icholas
Abercrombie,B.A., M.SC.
Lecturer
in Sociology
University
of Lancaster
BryanS. Turner,B.A., PH.D.
SeniorLecturer
in Sociolog):
Universfy
of Aberdeen

NOTES
* This paper was first presentedat a analysis of alienation. This issue is
seminarin the Departmentof Sociology separate from the class analysis of
at the Universityof Lancaster.We are ideology. For a discussion of the
grateful to the participants of that appearance/realityissue cf. Norman
seminar,especiallyJohn Urry, for their Geras'Essenceand Appearance:Aspects
helpfulcomments. of FetishismMarx's Capital';NewLeft
I. In this paper we wish to avoid Review,no. 65, January-FebruaryI 9 7I,
confrontingthe specifictheoreticaldiffi- pp. 6945.
culties which are associatedwith the 2. K. Marx, TheEighteenth Brumaireof
technical distinction between 'com- LouisBonaparte, in Marx,K. and Engels,
petitivecapitalism'and 'monopolycapi- F., Selected Works, London,Lawrenceand
talism'. For an account of the Wishart,I 968,pp. I I 7-I 8.
competitive/monopolydistinction, cf. 3. K. Marx and F. Engels, The
Nicos Poulantzas,(Classesin ContemporaryGerman Ideology,London, Lawrenceand
London:NLB, I975, pp. I34 Wishart,I974, p. 64.
(Capitalism,
Ef.The terms'early'and 'late capitalism' 4. F. Engels, 7CheConditionof the
are descriptivecategorieswhich referto Working ClassinEnglandin s844, London,
changesin the organizationof capitalism AllenandUnwin, I 968,p. I 24
in GreatBritainsuchas the separationof 5. Ta]cott Parsons,The SocialSystem,
ownershipand control,the concentration London,Routledge& KeganPaul, I 95I,
of capitalistproductionand the crucial pp. 95I ff.
role of the state in economicorganiza- 6. For example,K. T. Erikson,Way-
tion. We also deliberatelyignorethe set wardPuritans,New York,Wiley, I966.
of issues which are raised in Marx's 7. For a recent analysis, cf. Jurgen
treatmentof ideologyby the distinction Habermas, Legitimation Crisis,London,
between reality/appearance in the Heinemann,I976.
I68 ;&icholas andBryanS. furner
Abercrombie

8. Peter L. Berger and Thomas I 6. Gabriel Le Bras, 'Dechristian-


Luckmann, 7CheSocial Construction of isation: mot fa]lacieux',SocialCompass,
Reality,London,Allen Lane, I967, pp. vol I 0, I 963, pp. 445-52 and quotedin
85 ff. Goodridge,op. cit., p. 385.
9. K. Marx, Capital, London, I 7. Cf. PerryAnderson'Originsof the
Lawrence and Wishart, I 970, vol. i, presentcrisis',;NewLeftReview,vo]. 93,
pp. 854n. January|February, I964, pp. 96-53.
I 0. Louis Althusser and Etienne I8. LucienGo]dmann,7Che Philosophy
Ealibar,ReadingCapital,London, NLB, of the Enlightenment,London, Routledge
I 970, pp. 2 I 6 ff. Nicos Poulantzas, & Kegan Paul, I973, pp. I8 ff.
PoliticalPowerandSocialClasses,London, I 9. M. D. Chenu,L'eveildela conscience
NLB and Sheed and Ward, I 973, dansla civilisationme'dievale,
Paris, I969.
pp I I-33.
Further research into this area is
II. Friedrich Heer, The Medieval presentedin Thomas N. Tent]er, 'The
World,New York,Mentor, I963, p. I99. Summafor confessorsas an instrument
For furthercriticalcomment,cf. David of social control', in CharlesTrinkaus
Martin, The Religiousand the Secular, and Heiko A. Oberman (eds), The
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Pursuitof Holinessin Late Medievaland
I969, ch. 2. Renaissance Religion,Leiden, E. J. Brill,
I 2. ArthurO. Lovejoy,TheGreat Chain I 974 and BarbaraH. Rosenwein and
of Being,Cambridge,Mass., I 936. LesterK. Little, 'SocialMeaningin the
I 3. Martin Goodridge,'The ages of Monasticand MendicantSpiritualities',
faith: romance or reality?', The Socio- Past and Present,no. 63, May I 974,
logicalReview,vol. 23, I975, pp. 38IS6. PP 4-32.
I 4. C. Marcilhacy, Le diocese 20. Cf. SheldonS. Wolin, Politicsand
d'Orle'ans au milieuduXIXemesiecle,Paris, Vision, London,GeorgeAllenandUnwin,
Sirey I964. For a generalcriticismof the I96I, ch. g; J. H. Burns,'J. S. Mill and
myth of pre-industria]religiosity, cf. Democracy I 829-6I ', PoliticalStudies,
David Martin, The Religiousand the 5, I957, reprintedin J. B. Schneewind
Secular:studiesin secularization, London, (ed.) Mill, London, Macmillan, I 969,
Routledge& Kegan Paul, I969. pp. 280-328.
I5. On the enforcement of confession, oI. E. P. Thompson, The Makingof
cf. Bryan S. Turner, 'Confessionand the EnglashWorkingClass, Harmonds-
socialstructure',7Che AnnualReviewof the worth,Penguin,I 968,p. 39I .
SocialSciencesof Religion,vol. I, I977, 22. For an overview of the Halevy
pp. 29-58. The low level of institutional thesis, cf. Michael Hill, A Sociology of
comrnitment and participation in Religion, London, Heinemann, I 973,
fifteenth-centuryFlanders is discussed ch. 9. The nationalstatisticsof Methodist
in Jacques Toussaert, Le sentiment developmentare examined in Robert
religieux en Flandrea la fin du Moyen-Age, Currie, MethodismDivided, London,
Paris,I 963. In a laterperiod,the general Faberand Faber, I968, ch. 3.
featuresof religiousadherencein Britain o3. On the politicalcharacteristicsof
are analysedby Keith Thomas,Religion Methodistchapels, cf. John Kent, The
andtheDeclineof Magic,London, I97I. Ageof Disunity,London,Epworth,I966.
The significance of the research of The classicalrejectionof the thesisthat
Toussaertand Thomasfor the study of Methodism played a crucial role in
secularizationis considered in David protectingEngland from revolutionis
Martin, 'The secularizationquestion', presentedin E. J. Hobsbawm,'Method-
7Cheology, vol. 76, I973, pp. 8I-7. Further ism and the Threat of Revolution in
evidenceon lay/clericaldiXerencescan Britain', in LabouringMen, London,
be foundin Rene Luneau,'Monderural Weidenfeldand Nicolson,I 972, ch. .
et Christianisation:pretrex et paysans 24. H. Mann, Census of GreatBritain
fransaisdu siecledernier',Archives Sciences I85I, ReligiousWorshipin Englandand
Socialesdes Religions,vol. 43, I 977, Wales, London, Routledge, I 854. The
pp. 39-52@ major documentson religion and the
The dominant
ideolog)J
thes?s
I69
workingclassareeditedin EdwardRoyle, 37. Cf. Teodor Shanin, 'The
RadicalPoliticsI79>I900, 'Religionand peasantry as a political factor', Socio-
Unbelief', London,Longman,I 97 I . logicalReview,vol. I4, I966, pp. 5-27;
25. A. MacIntyre, Secularization and on the conditions of peasant involvement
Moral Change,London, O.U.P., I 976. in radical political protest, Eric Wolf,
Ronald Pearsall, The Wormin the Bud, Peasant Wars of the TwentiethCentury,
London,WeidenfeldandNicolson,I969; London, Faber and Faber, I 97 I .
Kellow Chesney, The ZictorianUnder- 38. E. J. Hobsbawm, Bandits,
world,London,Pelican, I972. Harmondsworth, Pelican, Ig72.
26. Max Weber, Economy and Society, 39. On the concept of 'life-world', cf.
Totowa,BedminsterPress,I968, p.486. Alfred Schutz and Thomas Luckmann,
27. E. R. Wickham, Ch?lrchand TheStructures of theLife-World, London,
People in an IndustrialCity, London, Heinemann, I974.
LutterworthPress,I 957, p. I o6. 40. For a discussion of the end of
28. R. Miliband,TheStatein Capitalist ideology thesis in the works of Edward
Society, London, Weidenfeld and Shils, Seymour Martin Lipset and Daniel
Nicolson,I 969, p. I 82. Bell, cf. Alasdair MacIntrye, Against
29. Ibid.,p.I8I. the Self-Imagesof the Age, London,
30. Stephen Hill, The Dockers: Class Duckworth, I 97 I, ch. I .
and Tradition in London, London, 4I. Andrevv Gamble, The Conservative
Heinemann,I976. Furthercommentary JAation,London, Routledge & Kegan
on ideology and inconsistency is Paul, I974
presented in Theo Nichols and Peter 42. On the general issue of pluralism
Armstrong, WorkersDivided, London, and plausibility of beliefs, cf. Berger and
Fontana,I976. Luckmann, op. cit. The proliferation of
3 I . Michael Mann, Consciousness and religious views is discussed in Bryan
Actionamongthe WesternWorkingClass, Wilson, Contemporary Transformations of
London,MacmiHan,I973, p.68. Religion,London, OUP, I 976. Further
32. Frank Parkin,ClassInequality and consideration of the notion of 'pluralism'
PoliticalOrder,London, Paladin, I 972, is to be found in M. Haug, 'Social and
p.82. Cultural pluralism as a concept in social
33.See, for example, R. Blackburn, system analysis', AmericanSournal of
'The Unequal Society',in R. Blackburn Sociology,
vol. 73, I 967, pp. 294-304.
and A. Cockburn (eds), The Incom- 43. These fundamental transitions in
patibles,
Harmondsworth, PenguinBooks, moral philosophy are discussed within
I967. a sociological framework by Alisdair
34. This effectof the confessionalwas MacIntyre, A ShortHistoryof Ethics,
a major aspect of the conflictbetween London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, I967,
JesuitsandJansenists.A detailedanalysis ch. I8 and in Ernest Gellner Wordsand
is presentedin Theodore Zeldin (ed.), Things,Harmondsworth, Penguin, I968.
Con0!ictsinFrenchS¢ciety,London,George 44. Berger and Luckmann, op. cit.,
AXenand Unwin, I 970, ch. I . p. I42.

35. For a briefdiscussionof the levels 45. Barry Hindess and Paul Q. Hirst,
of literacyof varioussectorsof societyin Pre-Capitalist
ModesofProduction,London,
medieval Europe, cf. J. Curran,'Mass Routledge & Kegan Paul, I 975,
Communicationas a social force in pp . I-9 O.
history', being Unit 2 of The Open 46. Some features of the epistemo-
University'Mass Communicationsand logical problems relating to the notion of
Society Course', Milton Keynes, The concrete social formations and theory in
Open UniversityPress,I977. sociology and Marxism are discussed in
36. John Wakeford, The CloisteredBryan S. Turner, 'The structuralist
Elite, London, Macmillan, I 969. N. critique of Weber's sociology', British
Abercrombie,et al., The University in the Journalof Sociology,
vol. 28, I 977, pp.
UrbanEnvironment, London,Heinemann I-I5.
EducationalBooks,I974. 47. For a recent discussion of the
I 7o J%icholas
Abercrombie
andBryanS. furner
relationship between the family and presentedin EdwardWagenknect(ed.),
capitalist relations of production, cf. Chaucer:ModernEssaysin Criticism,New
E. Zaretsky, Capitalism, TheFamily,and York,GalaxyBooks,I959.
Personal Life,London, Pluto Press, I976. 49. For a discussionof My SecretLife
48. The complex secular and religious and other aspects of Victorian porno-
dimensions of Courtly Love poetry are graphy, cf. Steven Marcus, The Other
discussed in C. S. Lewis, TheAllegory of Victorians,London, Weidenfeld and
Love,London, OUP, I938, ch. I Further Nicolson,I966.
commentaries on this problem are 50. Pearsall,op. cit., p. 507.

You might also like